Clerk of Court Suspended for Unauthorized Fee Collection: Breach of Duty

The Supreme Court has long held clerks of court to the highest standards of integrity, calling the Manual for Clerks of Court the "Bible for Clerks of Court." In Dutosme v. Caayon (A.M. No. P-08-2578, July 31, 2009), the Court disciplined a branch clerk of court for collecting fees from a litigant without proper authority. The case reminds court personnel that unauthorized fee collection—even with a handwritten receipt—constitutes misconduct warranting suspension.

The Facts

Complainant Gaspar R. Dutosme went to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 61, Bogo, Cebu, on May 9, 2006, to secure a copy of a decision in LRC Case No. 61-0053. He obtained the copy but only after respondent Atty. Rey D. Caayon, the Branch Clerk of Court, asked for and received P2,500, which he said represented commissioner's and stenographer's fees. Caayon gave Dutosme a handwritten receipt but did not issue an official receipt.

Caayon offered a different version. He claimed that the stenographer who recorded the proceedings was unavailable that day, so he furnished the complainant a copy of the decision. When Dutosme tendered money and asked that it be given to the stenographer, Caayon initially refused but eventually accepted it in good faith. He said he instructed Dutosme to return later so the stenographer could issue a receipt, but Dutosme claimed he had already sent the handwritten receipt to his boss in Cebu City.

The Issue

The central question was whether Caayon violated the rules when he collected the P2,500 from a party litigant.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court found Caayon guilty of simple misconduct and suspended him from service for one month and one day without pay, with a warning that repetition would be dealt with more severely.

The Court relied on the acknowledgment receipt Caayon himself issued, which stated the amount was for "commissioner's and stenographer's fees." This contradicted his claim that he merely received the money in trust for the stenographer. The Court noted that Dutosme's affidavit was executed under oath, while Caayon's comment was not. There was also no showing of any motive for Dutosme to fabricate charges.

The Court cited Section B, Chapter II of the Manual for Clerks of Court, which expressly provides: "No Branch Clerk of Court shall demand and/or receive commissioner's fees for the reception of evidence ex-parte." The Court also referred to Nieva v. Alvarez-Edad (A.M. No. P-01-1459, January 31, 2005), where a clerk of court was similarly found guilty for collecting commissioner's fees under the guise of receiving payment for transcripts of stenographic notes.

The penalty of suspension for one month and one day was imposed under the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, which prescribes suspension for a first offense of misconduct. The Court considered that this appeared to be Caayon's first offense.

Why This Matters

Clerks of court are judicial officers entrusted with the collection of legal fees. Their role demands scrupulous adherence to rules on what fees may be collected, from whom, and how these must be receipted. The case reinforces that court personnel cannot collect fees not expressly authorized by law or regulation, and that issuing handwritten receipts for personal convenience does not cure the violation.

Practical Takeaways

• Clerks of court may only collect fees expressly authorized by law or the Manual for Clerks of Court. Demanding or receiving commissioner's fees in ex-parte proceedings is specifically prohibited.
• A handwritten receipt does not legitimize unauthorized collection. Official receipts are required for all court fee collections.
• Court personnel should not accept money "in trust" for other court staff. Such arrangements create the appearance of impropriety and expose the personnel to administrative liability.
• Litigants who are asked to pay unauthorized fees should report the matter to the Office of the Court Administrator. An affidavit under oath carries significant evidentiary weight in administrative proceedings.
• First-time offenders face suspension of at least one month and one day. The Court treats unauthorized fee collection as misconduct, not a minor infraction.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.